# A possible bug and a request...

ThwartedEfforts (abakun@scinc.com)
Tue, 9 Jan 1996 16:09:12 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 03:17 PM 1/9/96 PST, you wrote:
    >I've mentioned this bug to a few people but I don't know whether it ever
    >actually got brought to this list, and now that I'm on this list I
    >thought I'd point it out myself. :)

    This is a known bug. I, myself, am not sure on the state of it tho.

    >First, we're currently running V1.7.8.pl4 of the LambdaMOO server.

    You might consider upgrading to 1.7.9p2.
    ;;x={1,2,3,4,5,6}; x[2] = x[4] = 8; return x
    => {1, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6}

    So, apparently, a bug exists in 1.7.9 (unless these are the correct results;
    anyone?), but I don't think it's the same one that you describe.

    >Now the request:
    >Whenever a traceback occurs it is generally difficult for a programmer
    >to get enough information out of the person it happened to to try to fix
    >it.  What would be really cool is if you could somehow store tracebacks
    >in a special property on #0,  if the property exists. That way whenever
    >a traceback occurs any programmer or wizard on line could take a look at
    >exactly what happened.

    I just finished up a patch such that when a traceback is going to be printed,
    the server tries to let #0:do_traceback handle it, passing it a list
    structure with the data that it would otherwise print (but it's in it's
    actual values tho, not as strings).  If you return 0 from this verb, then
    the server goes ahead and prints the traceback, if you return 1, the server
    assumes you handled it (same rules that exist for :do_command).

    If you are interested in this patch, I can give ya diffs.

    ThwartedEfforts